M & M Savant Ltd v Brown & Ors [2008] EWLands LRX_26_2006 (08 August 2008)

M & M Savant Ltd v Brown & Ors [2008] EWLands LRX_26_2006 (08 August 2008)

The landlord failed to comply with section 20(4)(b) because the estimates were not provided to tenants nor displayed in a place likely to come to their notice; making them available at an office 8-10 miles away was insufficient. The landlord did not act reasonably after being notified of the breach and proceeded regardless. Therefore, dispensation from the consultation requirements could not be granted.

Citation
[2008] EWLands LRX_26_2006
Parties
Appellant/claimant: M & M Savant Limited; Respondent/defendant: Michael Brown; Respondent/defendant: Subhash Raja; Respondent/defendant: Robin Pauley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and Application for Dispensation in County Court / Final Judgment After Combined Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for dispensation refused
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Consultation Requirements, Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Dispensation From Consultation, Reasonableness of Landlord Conduct
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Service Charges Consultation Requirements Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Dispensation From Consultation Reasonableness of Landlord Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M & M Savant Limited

Appellant/claimant

Michael Brown

Respondent/defendant

Subhash Raja

Respondent/defendant

Robin Pauley

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and Application for Dispensation in County Court / Final Judgment After Combined Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord complied with section 20 consultation requirements for major works service charges
  2. 2 Whether dispensation from consultation requirements should be granted under section 20(9)
  3. 3 Whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord failed to comply with section 20(4)(b) because the estimates were not provided to tenants nor displayed in a place likely to come to their notice; making them available at an office 8-10 miles away was insufficient. The landlord did not act reasonably after being notified of the breach and proceeded regardless. Therefore, dispensation from the consultation requirements could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for dispensation refused

Orders

  • Landlord limited to recovering £1000 for major works service charges for the block
  • No dispensation from consultation requirements granted